12/09/2025 TDTMS Meeting Summary

#

1 – Antitrust Admonition

The antitrust admonition was presented to ensure compliance with legal standards.
Participants were reminded to avoid proposing actions beyond ERCOT's legal authority.
Relevant antitrust information is available on the ERCOT website.

2 – Agenda Review and Introductions

Meeting agenda was reviewed and participants were introduced.

3 – ERCOT Updates

See sections 3.1–3.3.7 for details.

3.1 – IT Reports

All Service Level Agreements (SLAs) met for retail market systems and Market Data Transparency (MDT) systems.
Failovers occurred on Dec. 9 for the retail and listserv systems and on Dec. 6 for non-retail systems.
Issues noted with MarkeTrak on Dec. 2 and Dec. 25, including GUI slowdown or unavailability.
Monitoring has been added to detect issues quicker, but no root cause has been identified yet.
Stakeholders are encouraged to report any additional issues, adding them to the dataset.
All Service Level Objectives (SLOs) met for MarkeTrak despite a bump back in July/August, with no major concerns.
Volumes remained relatively flat with no significant concerns.
For listserv, over 3,600 posts were made reaching 423,000 recipients, with minor subscription changes in sub-lists.
No additional questions or significant updates were mentioned at the end of the presentation.

3.2 – RMS Update – Approval of Scope

The updated scope was discussed and confirmed as approved during the last RMS meeting.
Elizabeth was questioned about the process of posting the updated scope on the main TDTMS meeting page and agreed to check with stakeholder services.
Clarification was provided that a request may need to be emailed to update the main page with revised scope.
IT projects were referenced with mention of live updates and projects discussed in the joint meeting on Oct. 7.
Digital certificate changes were highlighted as a major topic, with changes expected in a few years.
Feedback from Caroline Reed was mentioned, requiring no changes or clarity in the minutes.

Decision: Consider those approved as written.

3.3 – Project Updates

Project updates focused on the MarkeTrak API, the first market-facing project discussed.
ERCOT plans to remove the ability to post result sets from MarkeTrak to the MIS application due to unused features and underlying technology changes.
A new REST API option was discussed as a potential future enhancement compared to the current SOAP architecture.
The REST approach was described as more modern and easier to use, especially for newer IT professionals.
There is no immediate plan to sunset SOAP, but it is expected eventually.
Any future endpoint changes would mainly involve URL updates.
The current project is focused on underlying technology changes and will not modify business logic.
Background reports will no longer be posted to MIS and will instead be provided as attachments in MarkeTrak.
Communication will follow for any endpoint changes when project implementation is underway.
User feedback may influence project scope or timing for additional features.

See 3.3.1–3.3.7 for additional details.

3.3.1 – MIS Updates – Retail API & UI

The MIS retail API and UI project remains in the conception phase.
Current focus is on ramping up the MarkeTrak API project.
The MIS project is expected to be similar to prior updates and primarily focused on underlying technology changes.
UI changes will involve enterprise standardization (look and feel, colors, button size, ERCOT logos) rather than retail-specific functionality.
Key items being tracked include key dates and reject codes.
Planning is expected to take another cycle or two before entering more formal phases.
This update was positioned as an early preview with more information to be shared later.

3.3.2 – NAESB Upgrade

The NAESB upgrade has been tested multiple times in the retail market test environment.
The team expressed confidence in the progress of the upgrade.
Implementation is scheduled to go into production early next year.
The schedule is expected to be regular (not extended).
Multiple iterations of the functionality have been tested successfully.

3.3.3 – MarkeTrak & Siebel Upgrade

This internal ERCOT project involves significant technology changes.
The upgrade is expected to have minimal market-facing impact.
Completion and execution are anticipated in approximately 18 months.
An extended outage will likely be required when execution begins.
No expected impacts on external parties were noted during the project duration.

3.3.4 – FlighTrak Upgrade

FlighTrak is currently not a priority and is unlikely to be addressed for the next year to year and a half.
NAESB timing was discussed with expectations for implementation in January.
NAESB has been tested in the current environment and is expected to move to production without impacting market partners.
Partner testing has been completed, with ERCOT committed to resolving issues promptly if they arise.

3.3.5 – Digital Certificates

No significant progress was reported on the digital certificates project.
A vendor has not yet been selected.
Document changes have been made to remove references to the term “digital certificate,” described as pre-cleanup work and not indicative of immediate action.
Some uncertainty was noted regarding whether certain documents may have been tabled by PRS.
No further updates or actions are expected for quite a while.

3.3.6 – Agile Enhancement Suggestions

Discussion topics included:

• Agile enhancement suggestions
• ERCOT MIS – key dates
• ERCOT MIS – hyperlink to reject codes
• MarkeTrak – SH removal reject codes for REPs
• MarkeTrak – U&B missing validations (invalid start/stop; cycle date not scheduled)
• MT User’s Guide suggested revision
• U&B missing: add “waiting 5 days to submit”

See the related items below for more details.

3.3.7 – MT User’s Guide Suggested Revision

Tammy confirmed she was present for discussion on the MT User’s Guide revision.
The User’s Guide is large and cumbersome to update, so changes are being collected for a consolidated update by year-end.
A specific revision was agreed to clarify “usage and billing missing” vs. “usage and billing dispute” regarding the five-day waiting period to submit.
The proposed revision will be added to the list of changes for the User’s Guide.

3.3.6 – MT – U&B Missing Validations (Invalid Start/Stop; Cycle Date Not Scheduled)

A suggestion was made to add validations to the usage and billing missing subtype.
A high level of effort was estimated due to the need for a project adding new drop-down validations.
Current validation of REP of record is already in place.
Discussion included adding a start date validation as a drop-down field.

3.3.6 – MT – SH Removal Reject Codes for REPs

Stakeholders discussed allowing REPs to use the same switch hold reject reasons currently used by TDSPs.
Reject reasons were described as useful but currently limited to TDSP usage.
The group discussed the complexity of adding new dropdowns/fields in MarkeTrak.
Terminology was discussed, with agreement to use “reasons” rather than “codes” to reduce confusion.
Participants were encouraged to share ideas for improvements and maintain an agile approach for smaller changes.
The enhancement log process was reviewed, including the potential need for an SCR for larger changes.
Elizabeth was thanked for managing the enhancement list.

4 – MarkeTrak Subtype Volumes

The group recognized the significant manual effort involved in reviewing large MarkeTrak datasets.
Sheri Wiegand emphasized that the purpose is to help REPs and TDSPs identify outlier behaviors, review internal processes, and improve efficiency rather than overwhelm with numbers.

4.1 – Cancel With Approval Subtype

The Cancel With Approval subtype was reported as stabilized after earlier increases.
A small number of REPs drive a significant share of volume, raising questions about differing processes.
Many requests were described as unnecessary because transactions had already completed.
Variation by TDSP was noted, with emphasis on improving submission accuracy and timing.

4.2 – Missing Enrollment Transactions

New validations introduced in SET 5.0 (including the CHP flag) were expected to reduce noise, but not all REPs appear to be using them effectively.
Much of the discussion centered on premature submissions and the need to check available indicators first.
Sheri noted surprise that unexecuted rates did not decline as expected.
The group expressed interest in helping REPs avoid avoidable submissions through improved understanding of the data.

4.3 – Meter Cycle Change Request (New Subtype)

This subtype showed strong adoption and low error/unexecuted rates.
The group viewed it as an example of a well-designed subtype with effective workflow and validations.

4.4 – Support for REP/TDSP Self-Analysis

Participants asked whether long-open MarkeTraks pending for years are tracked.
Sheri explained how such items appear in completion-time metrics and offered to help interpret raw data.
Dave Michelsen and Tammy Stewart offered to help TDSPs build internal recurring reports and interpret the dataset.
Very old MarkeTraks may require manual clearing due to workflow limitations.

4.5 – Usage & Billing Subtypes (Dispute & Missing)

These subtypes showed strong processing performance by TDSPs.
Discussion focused on improved consistency due to new unexecuted reasons, volume spikes caused by weather/system changes, and operational adjustments that improved performance at one TDSP.
Sheri emphasized the value of these analyses for helping REPs compare against peers and validate internal tool usage before escalating issues.

4.6 – Sum of LSC vs. 867 Subtype

Early usage was described as strong, with clear adoption patterns among REPs.
The discussion focused on learning from usage patterns rather than volume magnitude.

4.7 – Switch Hold Removal Subtype

Participants noted benefits from new validations and workflow changes implemented under SCR817.
Most switch holds are processed quickly due to strict timing requirements.
Invalid documentation remains the primary driver of unexecuted items, often from low-volume REPs unfamiliar with documentation requirements.
High-volume REPs were described as more accurate, while low-volume REPs struggle more with the process.

See section 4 – Inadvertent Gains for additional context.

4 – Inadvertent Gains

The inadvertent gains analysis was described as incomplete but showed key efficiency improvements driven by workflow changes.
Timing breakdowns indicate improved efficiency from originating transaction to submission.
Agreement on losses improved, with nearly 70% agreed the same day and 96% within the first week.
Agreements between CRs were 92% within seven days, with minimal exceedance beyond 15 days.
Changes under SCR817 and Texas SET 5.0 led to 69% of gains processed the same day and 97% within a week.
For losses, agreements within a week improved from 58% to 93%.
Overall gains resolution time improved, with more transactions processed within 0–21 days.
Large datasets are being made more accessible through spreadsheets.
NPRR1306 related to digital certificate removal was discussed, with further updates expected in Q1 2026.

5 – ERCOT IAG Report – Quarterly Review

ERCOT’s quarterly report on inadvertent gains and losses was reviewed, focusing on days to resolution.
Post-November 2024, resolution days were reported in single digits, indicating improvement.
Transparency and market efficiency were emphasized as key goals.
Charts and outliers were appreciated for helping market participants identify internal issues and process improvements.

6 – TDTMS Meeting Schedule 2026

The group discussed meeting scheduling options for 2026, including the third or fourth Tuesday of each month or alignment with SET days.
Preferences included Tuesday–Thursday meetings, with openness to Monday afternoon meetings.
Concerns were raised about travel requirements for Monday morning starts at 09:30.

Consensus for Q1 2026 schedule:

• January 22 (morning)
• February 23 (afternoon)
• March 23 (afternoon)

Next Steps:

• Finalize the color-coded calendar with RMTTF and training dates.
• Submit the first three months’ schedule to ERCOT.
• Reassess remaining schedule in March 2026.
• Submit nominations for TDTMS leadership to Elizabeth.
• Conduct elections during the January 22 meeting for 2026.

Acknowledgements included appreciation for team participation and special thanks to Sam, Monica, Kyle, and Thomas for data analysis work.
Happy holidays greetings were exchanged.

6.1 – Goals & Accomplishments

Members were encouraged to think about goals and accomplishments for 2025.
A list is typically compiled for the January meeting and presented at the February RMS meeting with input from other working groups.
Sheri Wiegand will draft goals and circulate them to leadership for feedback before finalizing.

7 – Adjourn

Nathan will update and post the revised scope online.
Gratitude was expressed for the opportunity to serve with leaders like Sheri Wiegand and Monica Jones.
Participants emphasized the importance of market efficiency and productivity improvements.
The forum’s role in enabling market feedback and improvement opportunities was recognized.
The meeting concluded with holiday well-wishes and appreciation.